[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipselink-users] contribution?
|
Shaun,
Yes, the OSGi service approach is primarily designed for things that
come and go which would probably be a problem for JPA. This is not to
say that services shouldn't be used for JPA. Eclipse itself uses
services for things that would be a problem if the service provider
were disabled. For example, when you call
Platform.getPreferenceService(), you are really getting an OSGi
service. If you were to hot-plug a new preferences service, your
client code could easily fail if you were keeping a handle to the
preference service.
My approach for making the EntityManagerFactory available as a service
doesn't really solve a technical problem. It does make JPA more OSGi
friendly. It really depends on whether EclipseLink wants to simply be
OSGi tolerant, or to fully embrace OSGi. Probably the more
interesting thing I could contribute is my extension point for
declaring entities and building the persistence.xml on-the-fly. Now,
this does solve a technical problem of how to create an extensible
framework that uses entities.
If this is not interesting, I can simply layer my existing code on top
of EclipseLink for my own use just as I have done with Hibernate.
Bryan
On Dec 12, 2007, at 11:16 AM, SHAUN SMITH wrote:
Hi Bryan,
What is the level of interest in the contribution of my work on
integrating JPA into Eclipse? I've started down the path of getting
permission to contribute which requires a proposal, several
approvals,
and sign-off by two different review boards. I just want to make
sure
there's serious interest in my contribution before I do all this work
to get it approved.
I agree. If you have to go through a bunch of work to provide the
contribution we should probably figure out what is the right way
forward first. So far I'm satisfied with packaging of EclipseLink
as a set of bundles and using the JPA "as is". That is,
bootstrapping using the SPI
Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory(...). Your service based
approach looks interesting but what problem does it solve that this
naive approach doesn't? Can you elaborate on what drove you this
direction?
What should happen if the implementation bundle is stopped and there
are active EntityManagers?
It seems like an OSGi service approach is suitable for things that
can come and go--like a printing service or logging service. I
wouldn't expect a JPA implementation to be something that could come
and go?
Shaun
_______________________________________________
eclipselink-users mailing list
eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users
